Geppetto is my kind of democrat.

2/24/2020 12:10:25 PM

Can I hear an answer on why billionaires should not exist? Hopefully more of one than @dtownral gave to my questions regarding privilege.

Even in socially progressive countries that practice european democratic socialism, they have billionaires.

You can say that without the works, those billionaires would have never made their money and thus a fair share belongs to the workers. With that said, I'd counter that those works would likely not have jobs if it weren't for the billionaires that created/started/funded/ran the companies for which those workers were employed. It's a two way street, and I don't understand setting a cap on income or wealth (big difference here) attainment. Should they pay more in taxes, without a doubt. Be prohibited to exist, not without a strong argument as to why.

2/24/2020 12:39:40 PM

Why should we organize our economy in a way that allows a small number of people to dictate how a massive portion of our national wealth is held and spent? Doesn't that sound more like oligarchy than democracy?

2/24/2020 12:49:01 PM

Billionaires are a failure of the system and are not victims because they didn't become billionaires by accident. They could have created successful companies and been multi-millionaires but they chose to cut corners every step of the way while denying wages and benefits to their employees, and denying environmental sovereignty to their communities. They took as much as they could possibly get away with every step of the way.

Quote :

"And what about poor individuals who vote republican? "

They aren't usually voting republican based on economics. Its usually because they see the unborn as the least privileged and even as a poor person, they are privileged enough to have been born so they end up voting republican solely on abortion. This is something that can only be solved with education. There is also the gun thing. Poor white people don't have the gated communities, safe zip codes, fast police response times, and armed security that the wealthy have so their views on personal defense are the opposite of privilege.

Quote :

"If you're going to lean on their white privilege, then why are there white democrats at all since they, too, would harbor that privilege?"

It is possible to "check your privilege" be aware of it and see the world outside the lens of that privilege. This is what it means to be "woke" or "SJW".

Quote :

"Why are their black people who grew up poor and then later vote republican? "

"I came out of poverty so anyone else could do it" is a common attitude in this country. That is the privilege of exceptional talent or ability. There are a lot of people who know what the suffering is like and think others should also go through that same suffering.

Quote :

" If it is privilege that is driving political philosophy, then is everyone on the right systematically more privileged than those on the left, and only those on the far left are without privilege or were somehow able to shake it?"

Economically speaking, yes.

Quote :

" I could argue I had privilege, when compared to the whole, but it'd be a stretch to say they did."

Same story as candace owens. Listen to her talks because she spells all of this out. Her parents were exceptions she thinks because they "wanted better" but I would argue most people who "want better" can't simply achieve better by working hard. Maybe the story started with a poor person getting a low-wage, shitty job and working their way up. There may have been 10 other equally qualified, equally able poor folks applying for that same job but only a position for 1. That 1 has the opportunity to move up while the 9 others are stuck in poverty.

We don't have a meritocracy and the socialist programs Sanders has proposed would actually create more of a meritocracy. We don't want to give everyone wealth, we want to give everyone necessities required for the opportunity earn wealth.

2/24/2020 1:25:57 PM

Quote :

"I can definitely see those people, and perhaps even myself, voting for Bernie at the top of the ticket but voting out of the party elsewhere to keep balance."

If this were to happen on a mass scale, and then Bernie Sanders were to lose the presidential election to Donald Trump, you would risk rubber stamping Donald Trump's second term with a complacent Republican congress.

I would think that it would make more sense to hedge your bets and vote for Democratic candidates, in order to ensure that the Democratic party controls at least one of the three branches of federal government.

As was mentioned on the previous page, a Republican congressional check on a Bernie Sanders presidency would likely result in unfilled judicial seats, similar to what occurred during the latter portion of Barack Obama's presidency.

This strategy of voting Republican down ticket to offset a potential Democratic presidential victory would only make sense if you view an unchecked Bernie Sanders presidency as worse than an unchecked Donald Trump presidency.

[Edited on February 24, 2020 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2020 1:53:23 PM

Quote :

"They could have created successful companies and been multi-millionaires but they chose to cut corners every step of the way while denying wages and benefits to their employees, and denying environmental sovereignty to their communities. They took as much as they could possibly get away with every step of the way. "

What an amazingly generalization. How did Oprah cut corners? Who did she deny wages and benefits?. In what way did she deny environmental sovereignty to her community?

2/24/2020 2:14:42 PM

Quote :

"Who did she deny wages and benefits?"

Her production company and magazine company workers. She employees 10-20,000 people.

[Edited on February 24, 2020 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2020 2:23:20 PM

Quote :

"Why should we organize our economy in a way that allows a small number of people to dictate how a massive portion of our national wealth is held and spent? Doesn't that sound more like oligarchy than democracy? "

It seems you answered my question with a question, rather than providing anything to support your previous claim. To answer your question, I would say I'm supporting organizing an economy that allows individuals to dictate how the majority portion of their private wealth is held and spent, which is far from oligarchy. Even in the take you took to describe billionaire wealth, I would still say NO that is not an oligarchy simply because these people don't control the government. You may want to respond with "anyone with that much money can control the government" but you can also have people with hundreds of millions control the government, or tens of millions. You're advocating against billionaires, so why is a hundred millionaire okay and not billionaire? Where is the line drawn?

There are several ways to prevent money from influencing politics but capping wealth isn't likely the most effective. If reducing the influence wealthy have over the government and policy is your primary interest, which is one I support by the way, then focusing on reducing lobbying, fair and open election donations, limits on campaign financing, etc are all means that don't involve vilifying or limiting one's private wealth.

Now that I've answered your question, I hope you'll do the courtesy of answering mine.

Quote :

"hey could have created successful companies and been multi-millionaires but they chose to cut corners every step of the way while denying wages and benefits to their employees, and denying environmental sovereignty to their communities."

Individuals at all levels of business cut corners and can take advantage of workers. Multi-millionaires cut corners, small mom and pop auto mechanics, restaurant owners, etc. Cutting corners doesn't make these people billionaires and all billionaires didn't get there by cutting corners.

Quote :

"story as candace owens. Listen to her talks because she spells all of this out. Her parents were exceptions she thinks because they "wanted better""

That is a remark that couldn't be further from the truth. I know that I don't deserve everything that I have. I know that while I have worked hard and made some sacrifices that have gotten me further and further ahead, I was fortunate and lucky enough to be in situations where I had a choice to make that sacrifice. It wasn't luck, but it wasn't all hard work either. Not a week goes by that I don't reflect on how fortunate I am and how there are millions of people more deserving of my place in society than I am. I believe my parents were in the same boat, even though significantly less well off, and I know they realize how fortunate they are, which is why they instilled that within my moral compass. Some people do start out significantly ahead and we need to create a system that does a better job at equalizing that. However, I believe it can be achieved without class warfare.

Quote :

"If this were to happen on a mass scale, and then Bernie Sanders were to lose the presidential election to Donald Trump, you would risk rubber stamping Donald Trump's second term with a complacent Republican congress."

This is a valid point that I had not considered and will make me less likely to vote across lines this time. I'll even stress this to others. Be that as it may, there are still individuals out there who will vote across lines as a result of Sanders getting the nomination. While I can't say the full number, I do know a number of self-identified, consistently democratic voting people who have mentioned it is what they will be doing come November if Bernie gets the nomination.

2/24/2020 5:12:48 PM

Quick question, do you think that the opinions of billionaires are not currently represented in national politics?

Do you think they are represented more, less, or the same amount as working class people?

Do you think Sanders being in the White House would suddenly silence their input and cut off their access to our political system?

[Edited on February 24, 2020 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2020 5:15:37 PM

I was thinking recently that a moderate Democratic candidate would lead to more voters potentially voting for the Democratic president but voting for Republicans down ticket, because why would a Never Trump Republican vote for Democrats down ticket when they're just holding their nose and voting for a Democratic presidential candidate due to their dislike of President Trump?

My assumption was that a more left-leaning candidate would energize voters to vote for more Democratic candidates down ticket. It never occurred to me that a more left-leaning candidate would cause voters to elect more Republican candidates down ticket in order to offset the Democratic presidential candidate's potential victory.

2/24/2020 5:52:01 PM

Quote :

"Now that I've answered your question, I hope you'll do the courtesy of answering mine. "

Sorry, I thought I did answer your question. I can re-phrase it though. We shouldn't organize our economy in a way that allows a small number of people to dictate how a massive portion of our national wealth is held and spent. That's oligarchy, not democracy. 3 people owning as much wealth as 160 million is definitive proof of oligarchy.

The "private wealth" they hold was "earned" through inheritance, underpaying workers, avoiding taxes, and manipulating markets.

[Edited on February 24, 2020 at 6:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2020 6:29:02 PM

Florida would never vote for someone who is pro-literacy. Bernie needs to come out and disavow his comments and any of his support from groups that advocate childhood literacy programs.

[Edited on February 24, 2020 at 7:35 PM. Reason : Vcuz none are empty or oneliners like most. this was one of my shortest. i make every post count]

2/24/2020 7:25:33 PM

Wait how do you only have 811 posts?? Feels like thousands

[Edited on February 24, 2020 at 7:32 PM. Reason : E]

2/24/2020 7:31:44 PM

Biden no longer running for president
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1232164550620909568?s=19

2/25/2020 7:43:42 AM

biden's mental health is much more of a concern to me than sanders' heart

2/25/2020 8:11:11 AM

^^ pretty rough

2/25/2020 9:18:17 AM

deleted. what did it say?

2/25/2020 9:29:46 AM

it was a confused biden saying he was running for senate and check his record or something like that

found another source:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-speech-senate-south-carolina-democratic-primary-video-election-2020-a9356366.html


[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

2/25/2020 9:32:09 AM

lol, nice.

2/25/2020 9:36:00 AM

It's not deleted. I bet you're having a problem i have. Frequently when going to a tweet from tww I get "could not retrieve" or whatever that seems like deleted, but if I click again it works.

Lol nm now I'm showing deleted too

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 9:48 AM. Reason : What's the smartphone version of "click"? ]

2/25/2020 9:47:02 AM

tap or dab? probably

2/25/2020 9:52:04 AM

Tbh, the Biden thing is out of context according to multiple campaign beat staff. It’s part of a riff he does every stop where he talks about campaigning over the years and then circles back to today.

Biden is clearly not all there and I agree his mental state (like Trump) is a far bigger worry than Bernie’s heart but fair is fair.

2/25/2020 9:57:10 AM

^What about "Hear me out before you vote for the other Biden"

2/25/2020 10:00:03 AM

That part sounded like he flubbed "guy" bc he says that all the time

Which is also weird, what other candidate constantly reminds you that, hey, you can vote for someone else!

^^do you have a source for that? Can't find anything

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 10:08 AM. Reason : E]

2/25/2020 10:04:19 AM

https://twitter.com/natashakorecki/status/1232285377727213568?s=21

2/25/2020 10:17:16 AM

Definitely seems to be the case, but it’s hard to tell even with the full clip. No idea what he means by “the other Biden”

https://twitter.com/ryanradia/status/1232310748761743362?s=21

2/25/2020 10:33:26 AM

no he did not make a "flashback" speech to when he was actually running for senate. The chronological context of the statement progressed from "you helped clinton" to "you helped obama" to asking for them to help him running for senate.

2/25/2020 10:40:34 AM

Quote :

"Quick question, do you think that the opinions of billionaires are not currently represented in national politics? Do you think they are represented more, less, or the same amount as working class people? Do you think Sanders being in the White House would suddenly silence their input and cut off their access to our political system?"

I'm not sure how this scarecrow is relevant. What is the driving factor for these questions? I've asked what would make me a person of privilege and questions about where does privilege begin and end and I've asked questions around how much money should people be allowed to have and where does that line begin or end. I've even explicitly stated that I think we should limit the money in politics and that there are ways to approach it that don't attack people. I'll answer your questions, but I don't get the point of what they are intended to achieve given the questions that have been asked so far.

It'd be like if I asked those questions about any group Trump tried to vilify or marginalize. In case it is not obvious, I use the Mexicans = rapists example only because it was a clear boogieman, whereas many of this other comments are marginalizing, disrespectful, and degrading but not vilifying. If I say "Quick question, do you think Trump being in the White House would immediately silence Mexican american input or cut off their access to the political system" that would have no value and just because the answer is no, given the context of immediately, doesn't mean Trump's comments are any less concerning or disgraceful.

To answer your question...Billionaires currently have their opinions/positions supported and disproportionately so compared to their number. Sanders being in place will not totally remove this issue. This is a lobbying and contribution limit problem, not a amount of wealth amassed problem. Sanders taxing them and targeting them as the root of the common person's problems does not solve it and it also distracts people from other influences that reduce the quality of their life and where they stand in society.

Quote :

" Sorry, I thought I did answer your question. I can re-phrase it though. We shouldn't organize our economy in a way that allows a small number of people to dictate how a massive portion of our national wealth is held and spent. That's oligarchy, not democracy. 3 people owning as much wealth as 160 million is definitive proof of oligarchy."

Without responding with a statement, I'm not sure how you thought you answered the question. Also please define what you're saying about national wealth. Are you saying that it is the sum of all money earned in the United States, because that is private wealth. And how people choose to spend their money isn't signs of an oligarchy, even if some have more than others. If you're saying that national wealth are our tax dollars, then I'd agree that is inappropriate, as I have stated above, but would again state that is a guardrail problem not an income problem. Focusing purely on one's wealth, can you draw a clear dollar amount where someone's influence becomes unjust and why it is at that dollar amount? This is something that goes unanswered. My assumption it is largely unanswered because guardrails are the problem more so than a particular individual's net worth.

Quote :

"The "private wealth" they hold was "earned" through inheritance, underpaying workers, avoiding taxes, and manipulating markets."

Do you have any sources on any of these? I do know I have read several times that the majority of Billionaires are self-made. Now, I agree that this can be misleading, since it means that the person did not come from hundreds of millions or billions to start with. I'd even wager that 95% of Billionaires (no data here, just assumption) came from solidly middle class to upper middle class and beyond families, which would mean they had a head start. However, with that said, not everyone with that same head start makes Billionaire status, so they clearly had to work in some way to make that happen.

What stats are you reviewing to say they underpay their workers? If it is because you believe they couldn't possibly be billionaires if they paid their workers a fair percent of the profits, then I'd respond with what is that fair percentage. From your point of view, does the company creator, owner, etc not deserve more compensation for the additional capital, risk, etc invested to keep the company running and employee the people they have hired?

In situations where CEOs are sentenced and serve jail time, should all employees equally share jail time?

Also, there are lots of cases that people within small businesses equally treat employees poorly. People who aren't billionaires, or even millionaires. Some of which just make middle class (lots of family farmers with migrant workers in poor conditions come to mind here). Why would one unequally go after billionaires rather than all employers?

I can clearly see that the two of you have a lot of opinions and feel very passionately about them. But from your answers, it doesn't immediately appear if you have a lot of facts or that you have fully thought through the implications of your positions. My concern is that Bernie is much the same way.

2/25/2020 10:53:44 AM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

Quote :

"But from your answers, it doesn't immediately appear if you have a lot of facts or that you have fully thought through the implications of your positions. My concern is that Bernie is much the same way."

Sorry, I'm not going to respond to vast essays here - it's a waste of time and has never changed anyone's mind. If you have specific questions or are interested in reading material, I can help you there.

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2020 11:54:55 AM

Feel free to cherry pick the questions I've asked one by one if you wish.

But when you continually dodge or choose not to answer honest questions to support claims that you, yourself, have made, it weakens the credibility of your claims, suggests your positions are neither educated nor researched, and indicates you prefer to keep a closed mind rather than evaluate the merit/consistency of your point of view.

2/25/2020 12:12:56 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, I'm not going to respond to vast essays here - it's a waste of time and has never changed anyone's mind."

Then why are you on a message board?

2/25/2020 12:34:48 PM

Why are you? How can I convince someone that it's not okay for 3 people to own 50% our country's wealth? I can't. It's not worth discussing. This is a guy who, last page, said vilifying billionaires is similar to vilifying Mexicans. Sorry, I don't owe anyone a debate - if you consider that "dodging", so be it!

2/25/2020 12:49:52 PM

Most of us are on a message board bc we joined in college and like the community.

You've been on for like 6 months and exclusively post in soap box (or related) threads.

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 1:15 PM. Reason : How/why did you get here? Are you a nicer dtr alias?]

Utown and Dave both joined on 8/2/19. Sttexan joined on 8/22/19.

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 1:17 PM. Reason : E]

2/25/2020 1:12:18 PM

no, i am not dtr

2/25/2020 1:26:33 PM

Oh shit got em!

2/25/2020 1:29:40 PM

^4 It is considered dodging. If you're content in not adequately supporting your point of view beyond surface talking points and loosely structured jabs, then everyone else is as well. No one here will lose any sleep over it.

What we will do is recognize that despite working for the campaign, and being a staunch supporter, that your stance is nowhere near as sound and verifiable as you'd want us to believe.

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2020 1:31:57 PM

^^ lol

2/25/2020 1:34:50 PM

adultswim

Not really hiding anything, just banned my old acct for a few months and reregistered with this one

2/25/2020 1:35:52 PM

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2020 1:39:57 PM

^^oh shit x2? Actually got em??

Im a regular good detective guy over here

2/25/2020 1:44:57 PM

Appears bootyitch and klobachar are never going to catch fire. Biden has dementia. That leaves Bloomberg, Warren, and Sanders. Hope the debate is as cutthroat as last debate!

2/25/2020 2:01:10 PM

^^
I am not utowncha

2/25/2020 2:06:46 PM

I'll take one out of three. That's an all star in baseball

2/25/2020 2:12:56 PM

https://twitter.com/FHQ

Quote :

"Thoughtful piece here from @ed_kilgore on the future of caucuses after another slow count in Nevada. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/after-iowa-and-nevada-its-bye-bye-caucuses.html I'd add a couple of things. One is just for fun. Nevada was *supposed* to be second in the order when it was added to the early states for 2008. *In between Iowa and New Hampshire.* The Florida and Michigan push into January spoiled that and altered the original line up. 2/ The other is that the future of caucuses hinges on a couple of things. 1) if an incumbent Democrat is seeking renomination (That'll mean more caucuses if largely uncontested). 3/ But 2) all eyes are going to be those party-run primary states. Like the caucuses, the state parties will be running them. And like the caucuses, those state parties will be dealing with implementing new processes. 4/ This is a trial run for those processes and the party-run primary in general. Those efforts will be measured against the two caucuses that have already occurred. 5/ The silver lining potentially for the party-run primaries being successful (relative to the caucuses so far) is that they are in small states (AK, HI, KS, ND) where implementation will be easier than it would be in a larger state. 6/6 https://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2020-democratic-delegate-allocation-and.html "

Congressional district delegate allocation for South Carolina Saturday.

Quote :

"CD1 - 6 delegates [Charleston] CD2 - 4 delegates [Aiken, Clemson] CD3 - 3 delegates [Anderson] CD4 - 4 delegates [Greenville] CD5 - 5 delegates [Rock Hill] CD6 - 8 delegates [Columbia, Orangeburg] CD7 - 5 delegates [Florence, Myrtle Beach]"

Post-Nevada poll released for North Carolina by Public Policy Polling has:

Biden 23, Sanders 20, Bloomberg 17, Warren 11, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 3, Gabbard 1

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2020 3:47:18 PM

wow joe biden came out swinging straight below the belt

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 8:12 PM. Reason : disgusting]

2/25/2020 8:12:02 PM

Pete saying everyone is running away from Bernie’s plans is sorta hilarious considering he claimed support for Medicare for All before naming his plan Medicare for All want it. Almost like M4A is actually very popular.

2/25/2020 8:33:38 PM

they are beating up on bernie bad

2/25/2020 8:35:19 PM

Bloomberg paid good money for this crowd

[Edited on February 25, 2020 at 9:11 PM. Reason : Oh, tickets were 'spensive ]

2/25/2020 9:00:51 PM

Would be better if everyone attacked Bloomberg

2/25/2020 9:08:51 PM

he bought the ads too

2/25/2020 9:16:02 PM